Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of the material judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (3/29/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, March 30, 2022 | 08:47 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation filed by Victor Santoso Tandiasa and two other petitioners were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court (MK).

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” asserted plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of case No. 10/PUU-XX/2022 at a ruling hearing on Tuesday, March 29, 2022.

The Court first considered the Petitioners’ legal standing and qualifications as advocate (Petitioner I), researcher (Petitioner II), and university student (Petitioner III) with constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution and their perceived constitutional impairment as referred to in Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law.

Also read: Provision of State Administrative Law in Job Creation Law Deemed Impairing Court Authority

In relation to the Petitioners’ argument on their legal standing, after examining the evidence, the Court found that there had not been a special power of attorney for Petitioner I by his client for the judicial review case. It only found that which was addressed to the Director-General of General Law of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and that for filing a fictitious positive at the State Administrative Court (PTUN).

The Court was of the opinion that as an advocate, Petitioner I indirectly suffered constitutional impairment and could not assume his client’s constitutional impairment except if, by the special power of attorney, he had filed a judicial review petition to the Constitutional Court. The Court had asserted this in previous decisions as the basis to consider advocates’ legal standing based on certain cases that their clients are involved in. This is because the client has suffered the constitutional impairment factually, but the advocate has not necessarily suffered specific or actual impairment due to the law petitioned for review.

Based on the aforementioned legal consideration, the Court was of the opinion that Petitioner I did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition. similarly, although Petitioners II and III had elaborated their constitutional impairment, as it did not happen to them specifically nor actually, they also did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition.

Even if the Petitioners had had the legal standing, according to the Court, quod non, the principal point of their petition had been premature. Therefore, the Court did not consider the principal point of the petition and other matters related to it.

Also read: Petitioners of State Administration Law in Job Creation Law Convey Revisions

The case was filed by advocate Victor Santoso Tandiasa, PSHK (Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies) researcher Muhammad Saleh, and student Nur Rizqi Khafifah (Petitioners I-III).

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Parningotan Malau asserted why Article 175 point 6 of the Job Creation Law was unconstitutional. Due to the provision, Petitioner I had not received a state administrative decision despite having filed a petition to the Director-General of General Legal Administration of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, because it had impaired court authority to rule on the petition, which was considered legally granted. As such, it had led to legal vacuum and legal uncertainty because the Petitioner’s petition had not been responded even after the 10-day deadline as referred to in Article 53 of the State Administrative Law, or after the 5-day deadline as referred to in the amendment to the provision in Article 175 point 6 of the Job Creation Law.

“As a result, Petitioner could not file a fictitious positive appeal to fight for his client’s interest and he could not perform the duty requested of him to obtain legal certainty [in the form] of a ruling on their petition,” said Petitioner Victor Santoso Tandiasa before Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Saldi Isra virtually.

The a quo article could also potentially impair the constitutional rights of Petitioners II and III because, as citizens who are concerned with state administrative issues, the lack of court authority on such a fictitious positive appeal also affect their advocacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2Vfcr6gbs

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/5/2022 13:12 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---